Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

When to hold 'em, when to show 'em; clients generally have the right to see case, documents, but the party who foots the bill doesn't

Article Abstract:

Lawyers in general have the obligation to share case documents with clients, however, a party-nonclient paying the bills does not. An example would be a case in South Carolina, where an insurance company who represents its insureds under a liability policy asks the attorney to give an outside auditor copies of its legal bills. South Carolina Ethics Opinikon 97-22(1997) ruled that the lawyer could comply as long as the client's representation would not be substantially affected. Other examples from the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania are given.

Author: Cohen, Elizabeth J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1998

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Hedge your bets carefully; caution is advisable when trying to protect fee interest in contingency cases

Article Abstract:

Bar association ethics committees have grappled with the issue of whether a lawyer may withdraw from a contingent fee case in which a client has rejected a proposed settlement the lawyer believes would be the best deal. The committee found the lawyer's trying to withdraw from the case the most troublesome, because it exerted unfair pressure on a client to accept the settlement. The committee in question, the Philadelphia Bar Assn Professional Guidance Committee, did, however, stop short of an outright ban on the practice.

Author: Cohen, Elizabeth J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1998
Ethical aspects, Contingency fees

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Afraid of ghosts; lawyers may face real trouble when they 'sort of' represent someone

Article Abstract:

Attorneys who ghostwrite complaints for pro se litigants run the risk of forming lawyer-client relationships with all attendant duties. The federal district court decision of Laremont-Lopez v. Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Center ruled that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was nullifed by this practice and that ghostwriting for pro se parties allowed circumvention of other civil procedjure rules. Other courts have expressed misgivings about ghostwriting.

Author: Cohen, Elizabeth J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
Analysis, Laws, regulations and rules, Practice of law, Pro se representation, Attorney and client

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Standards, United States, Legal ethics
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Noisy hypocrisy and moments of silence. The bar must campaign for the independence of the judiciary - and of the legal profession itself
  • Abstracts: Why Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and related conditions should be excluded from the Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Abstracts: 'Sunshine' laws bar secret settlements; several states have enacted statutes that prevent parties from keeping particular settlements and documents confidential. part 2
  • Abstracts: Merrill: keep grand jury confidential; firm fights evidence release in Orange County matter
  • Abstracts: 'Cheap stock' options draw SEC review: at issue: the valuation given and its effect on earnings. More courts find de facto 'franchises;' unexpected status triggers new obligations, liabilities
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.